Recommendations of the Expert Group

In their discussions under Thematic Session 3 (Sharing experiences, international context and Networking) the experts developed a series of recommendations and follow-up actions to be carried out through sharing experiences and networking. It was agreed that a monitoring programme should incorporate existing environmental surveillance and ecological inventory data, and the available expertise in monitoring and taxonomy. They must also consider the organisms, functions, ecological and socio-economic processes that stakeholders value, and would seek to have protected. Post-release monitoring can work, even within the restricted resource levels, but only if there was a continuous engagement of all the stakeholders. This has to be fostered through formal and informal networks, alliances and initiatives which promote communication and information dissemination. The outcome of the monitoring programme must inform decision making. It should feed back the regulatory processes and policies that support the development of sustainable agricultural practices. The experts agreed to a monitoring system that would be implemented on a case by case basis and nested within broader environmental goals. It was more important to get imperfect monitoring systems up and running quickly, in circumstances where these are required, rather than wait until we have perfect systems.

In this context, the experts discussed the role and contribution of the international community in the process of establishing effective monitoring procedures, including UN agencies, CGIAR centres, and national and regional centres of excellence. The FAO and other international organizations have a major responsibility to start a process to develop a comprehensive understanding of country and local community needs with respect to post-release monitoring of GM crops. Their recommendations are as follows:

A. Scientists and International Community Managing Monitoring Programmes

• The scientific community is strongly encouraged to engage in research, development and education associated with the effective implementation of post-release monitoring programmes. Critical and innovative thinking was essential to develop new and appropriate methodologies.


• Identify and mobilize relevant expertise, especially field and traditional expertise, as well from biotechnologists, biologists, ecologists and environmental scientists. Include expertise from other fields, like social sciences. Engage scientific societies.


• Involve stakeholders early and continuously in the process.


• Collaborate and develop inventory(ies) and biodiversity assessment in agro-ecosystems and neighbouring natural habitats, to provide baseline data and current trends coupled with measurements of agricultural practices and the patterns and distribution of crops that can assist in determining potential indicators.


• Participate in data sharing mechanisms including access via the Internet, where appropriate.


• Avoid selection of inappropriate indicators by following a robust process:


• Define the amount of change in any recommended indicator that should trigger concern and what aspects of the environment and cropping/soil management practice that might affect (increase or decrease) trigger values


• Gain awareness of all potentially useful datasets, and identify the most robust (precise/accurate) sources of existing data (regionally, nationally, internationally) that might be used as the indicator or as a surrogate.


• Define the most relevant scale, time-frame(s), at which the indicator operates to guide sampling and analysis.


• Ensure that appropriate, accessible methods exist to measure recommended indicators with the precision required.

B. Policy and Decision Makers at the Regional and National Level

• Identify clear goals and specific objectives for environmental monitoring programmes, and when/where these programmes are appropriate. To achieve this engage stakeholders to the greatest extent possible to understand what your society values and what their main interests and concerns are for deployment of GM crops. Competing policy goals exist and should be integrated


• Carefully identify the values (e.g. environmental, cultural, and economic) to be protected to analyse whether implementing a monitoring programme would protect those values or allay concerns?


• Responsibility for monitoring and reporting are national, but programmes can be undertaken using sub-national levels or jointly among countries.


• Ask definitive questions. Formulate a monitoring programme to measure effects that are connected with clearly stated protection values. State the amount of change over a defined time scale in any recommended indicator that should trigger concern. This requires setting thresholds and quantifying effects, including defining statistical detection limits.


• The process should be transparent, comprehensive and include an education and information dissemination programme for stakeholders.


• Develop policies to involve and strengthen public institutions, and to build capacity to develop, maintain and learn from well constructed monitoring programmes. Priority must be given to educational programmes and capacity building for relevant stakeholders (farmers, consumers, public, etc.)


• Identify what actions need to be taken in response to information from a monitoring programme. If it is unclear for what purpose monitoring data will be used, the monitoring programme will be ineffective and irrelevant. Additionally outcomes of the monitoring programme should inform public debate.


• Determine trigger criteria and action plans for intervention, remedial action.


• Ensure that any requirements set forth are feasible in terms of costs, personnel, expertise, protocols, and relevance of data generated. Adequate resources are required for monitoring programmes. Funding may sourced through partnerships between the public sector, biotechnology industry and other private sectors, and various stakeholder groups.

C. FAO, CGIAR Centres and International Organizations

• The FAO has a big responsibility to initiate the process and continue the dialogue started among stakeholders with respect to monitoring.


• Build upon the process to develop a comprehensive understanding of country needs and local communities. Be prepared to take on a stewardship role as the need arises.


• Support establishment of Pilot Monitoring Projects for collection, management and reporting field data as appropriate through joint initiatives.


• In countries/regions where CGIAR centres are located, they should provide national/regional support. For crops under their mandate, they should provide global support and serve as repository of regional information that has been deemed of sufficient quality that “mining” for monitoring change can occur. Provide the expertise to use those data for, regional meta-analyses. In some cases the centre will be the source of the GM technology and it will have special responsibilities to insure that independent, rigorous monitoring procedures are established.


• FAO, UNEP and other international and regional organizations collaborate to build national capacity for monitoring programmes, facilitate data management, leverage funding, partnerships and collaborations for monitoring programmes.